 | | | | |  | By Megan R. Wilson | Did someone forward this newsletter to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox. In today’s issue: Top doctors group and public health research org joining forces on vaccines. … By the numbers: The pharma industry groups being hauled before a congressional panel Wednesday. … Federal regulators are reevaluating a common preservative used in food. … And more. Good afternoon, and welcome to the Health Brief newsletter. Washington is finally beginning to thaw. Do you have any story tips or health policy intel? Shoot me a note at megan.wilson@washpost.com. If you prefer to message me securely, I’m also on Signal at megan.434. This newsletter is published by WP Intelligence, The Washington Post’s subscription service for professionals that provides business, policy and thought leaders with actionable insights. WP Intelligence operates independently from the Washington Post newsroom. Learn more about WP Intelligence. | | | |  | The Lead Brief | — Adapted from Lena H. Sun’s latest report from The Washington Post newsroom The American Medical Association and the Vaccine Integrity Project at the University of Minnesota, leading public health research group, are teaming up to create a system to review vaccine safety and effectiveness. The effort, which mirrors a role long played by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is just the latest example of public health experts no longer looking to the federal government for guidance. What it will do: The groups will convene leading medical professional societies, public health groups and health care organizations to “ensure a deliberative, evidence-driven approach to produce the data necessary to understand the risks and benefits of vaccine policy decisions for all populations — the approach traditionally used by the federal government,” according to a joint statement. Last year, the Vaccine Integrity Project did a systematic review of vaccines for the respiratory season, reviewing scientific studies on covid-19, influenza and RSV vaccines. Combining forces with the American Medical Association, the new group will complete similar evidence reviews that federal working groups have done for years. Why it matters: The involvement of the American Medical Association, the nation’s largest physician group, is significant because it has traditionally focused on issues such as physician reimbursement, billing practices and the economics of medical practice — not on broad public health evidence reviews. → Its decision to help stand up a parallel vaccine-review process reflects how seriously medical leaders view the breakdown of confidence in the federal government’s vaccine system under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - The groups say their work is needed because the CDC’s vaccine-review process has “effectively collapsed.”
- It will initially focus on reviewing immunizations for influenza, covid-19 and respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, ahead of the coming fall respiratory season.
- While the groups will not be making vaccine recommendations, they will be providing evidence reviews to state health officials, clinicians and others making vaccine decisions.
The backdrop: Over the last year, the federal panel of vaccine advisers that makes recommendations on vaccines, called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, has nixed long-standing recommendations for childhood vaccinations and drawn ire from some medical and public health groups. Upon taking the helm at HHS, Kennedy replaced the ACIP members with his own picks, many of which have vaccine-skeptic views. Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesman, told Lena that the “claim that ACIP’s evidence-based process has collapsed is categorically false. ACIP continues to remain the nation’s advisory body for vaccine recommendations driven by gold standard science.” “While outside organizations continue to conduct their own analyses and confuse the American people,” Nixon said, “those efforts do not replace or supersede the federal process that guides vaccine policy in the United States.” Looking ahead: ACIP is scheduled to meet in roughly two weeks, Feb. 25-27 | | | | | | Litigation Report | More than 100 public health organizations and academics focused on health, law, and policy filed a legal brief in support of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ lawsuit against the federal government’s changes to vaccine policy. “Recent federal actions weaken the nation’s routine vaccine recommendations, which protect people, particularly children, from serious diseases,” Anne Markus, chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Milken Institute School of Public Health, said in a statement. “We are asking the court to consider the science backing the vaccine recommendations that were in place in the early months of 2025. Restoring that vaccine schedule would save millions of lives,” said Markus, who signed on to the amicus brief. When the Trump administration rolled back recommendations for certain vaccinations for all children, they instead required what’s called “shared clinical decision-making,” a process that involves in-depth conversations between doctors and patients before providing those vaccines. When it made the changes, the administration argued that it was an effort to increase Americans’ trust in the public health system and in vaccinations. The brief argues that the “open-ended negotiation” involved in shared clinical decision-making “signals a physician’s ambivalence to parents. Although still formally considered a recommendation, a shared clinical decisionmaking designation acknowledges that vaccination is permissible in a particular population rather than affirmatively encouraging its use.” “Research shows that the presumptive approach and a strong endorsement from a clinician is the single strongest driver of vaccine acceptance,” the brief continues. The new recommendations could make some vaccines harder to get, the brief argues → Others who signed the amicus brief in support of the lawsuit include the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the American Thoracic Society and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. | | | | | | Numbers Game | The House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee will haul every major player in the prescription drug supply chain before lawmakers on Wednesday, setting up a familiar though politically consequential clash over who’s to blame for high drug prices. Unlike last month’s hearing featuring insurance executives, Wednesday’s hearing will feature witnesses from different sectors, including drugmakers, employers that use pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, and the PBMs themselves. Instead of individual companies, trade association executives are representing their members. The breadth of the witness panel ensures that no one leaves the hearing room without pointing the finger at someone else. In their written testimonies, many of the executives defend their own members while lambasting others. → Each of the organizations has differently sized war chests. While a group’s revenue or lobbying spending doesn’t automatically equal clout in Washington, having more resources can give an organization more leverage. (It should be noted that the community pharmacists — one of the smaller industry groups testifying, in terms of revenue — have been extremely successful in their push for PBM reforms.) Here’s a zoomed-out preview of the players in Wednesday’s hearing by the numbers: — Major drugmaker group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which represents name-brand manufacturers - Revenue: $521.4 million
- Members: 34
- Lobbying spending, 2025: $37.9 million
— The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a sprawling organization that primarily represents biotech companies - Revenue: $117.8 million
- Members: About 1,000
- Lobbying spending, 2025: $5.6 million
—The Association for Accessible Medicines, which represents generic drugmakers - Revenue: $21.5 million
- Members: 28, plus 10 affiliate members
- Lobbying spending, 2025: $3.1 million
—The ERISA Industry Committee, or ERIC, a group that represents large employers - Revenue: $5.6 million
- Members: Not publicly available
- Lobbying spending, 2025: $376,195
— The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA), which represents PBMs - Revenue: $54.2 million
- Members: 20
- Lobbying spending, 2025: $13.7 million
—The Healthcare Supply Chain Association, which represents group purchasing organizations (GPOs) - Revenue: $1.9 million
- Members: 8
- Lobbying spending, 2025: $600,000
— The National Community Pharmacists Association - Revenue: $16.3 million
- Members: Roughly 8,000 independent pharmacy locations, according to the group
- Lobbying spending, 2025: $1.3 million
—The Healthcare Distribution Alliance, representing pharmaceutical distributors - Revenue: $28.4 million
- Members: 37
- Lobbying spending, 2025: $2.2 million
| | | |  | Agency alert | The Food and Drug Administration is reevaluating the safety of butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), a common preservative often used in food, worried it could be carcinogenic. → The agency is requesting information from food manufacturers about the “uses, use levels, dietary exposure, and safety data on BHA currently used in food.” Comments are due by April 12. “If BHA cannot meet today’s gold-standard science for its current uses, we will remove it from the food supply and continue cleaning up food chemicals — starting where children face the greatest exposure,” Kennedy said in a statement. What’s next: FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said the agency will also take action on other additives, including evaluating the safety of preservative butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) and a dough conditioner called azodicarbonamide. Azodicarbonamide, which is banned in Europe from being used in food, gained infamy among health influencers as the “yoga mat” chemical. It’s also sometimes used in the manufacturing of plastics and rubbers. Flashback: More than a decade ago, Subway phased out using chemicals in its bread following pressure from Vani Hari, an author and activist known as the “Food Babe,” who has allied with Kennedy. She recently posted on social media that Arby’s no longer lists the ingredient on its menus. | | | | |
_tstmp_1756933376-1920-1080.png)
